Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Gorgeous video shows last weekend's Dunwich Dynamo - from the air

Drone footage of overnight ride from London to the Suffolk coast is absolutely mesmerising

We watch a lot of bike-related videos here at road.cc as you may imagine, and try to share the best with you - and this one, shot from a drone above last weekend's Dunwich Dynamo, is one of the best we've seen.

Now a firmly established and much-loved part of the UK's cycling year, the event celebrated its 25th edition this year.

Urban myth has it that it the  Dunwich Dynamo was founded by bike couriers who decided on a whim to ride east, towards the moon, after an evening down the pub.

But as cycling writer Jack Thurston pointed out to us, the founding fathers of the overnight midsummer ride from east London to the Suffolk coast were Patrick Field and Jez Hastings.

Numbers have steadily grown year on year and now run well into four figures.  

Nowadays it leaves London Fields on the Saturday evening closest to full moon in July - meaning not only is it a short and (assuming a clear sky) relatively well-lit night, but one that sees particpants heading towards the rising sun, too. 

This article by James Walsh on The Guardian Bike Blog gives a real flavour of what it's like to ride the 'Dun Run' and the sense of togetherness it brings to the cyclists who take part, and some of the communities they ride through.

Once you're past Woodford and Epping, that is ...

> Video: Teens push bike into path of Dunwich Dynamo riders, causing crash 

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

53 comments

Avatar
Ush | 6 years ago
2 likes

This][1] is interesting. It is specifically looking at the distance at which observers recognize a bicycle, as opposed to recognize that there is something in the road, but it suggests that flashing red taillights increase the recognition distance substantially. However, even better seem to be flashing lights on each ankle. Also it is recognized that this contradicts an earlier study which seemed to show that a flashing front light was not useful. In addition the visual background specifically excluded the situation which many of us find ourselves in: oncoming, glaring traffic lights. Still, it's interesting and introduces the explanation that one major path of optic nerves (ventral) detect what a thing is and relies on cones, while the other to detect where a thing is (dorsal) relies on the rods which are much more effective at night time.

1. Edewaard, Darlene Elise, "The Nighttime Conspicuity Benefits of Static and Dynamic Bicycle Taillights" (2017). All theses 2620.
http://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3627&context=...

Avatar
TerreyHill | 6 years ago
0 likes

Anyone know the backing music?

Avatar
Luv2ride replied to TerreyHill | 6 years ago
0 likes

TerreyHill wrote:

Anyone know the backing music?

I'm not sure but agree it was really good - anyone know who it was?

EDIT: "Tsunami" https://m.soundcloud.com/thegronk

Avatar
TerreyHill replied to Luv2ride | 6 years ago
0 likes

Luv2ride wrote:

TerreyHill wrote:

Anyone know the backing music?

I'm not sure but agree it was really good - anyone know who it was?

EDIT: "Tsunami" https://m.soundcloud.com/thegronk

Muchas gracias!

Avatar
Roadie_john | 6 years ago
0 likes

I get the point about plod saying 'lights were dim' - it was cited at the inquest into Pete Longbottom's death. But one of the issues is about distance you're expecting to be seen from. I've ridden several TTs behind people with the 4/4 Scorpion, which is the brightest I've seen - enough to leave flashing retinal burn for a few minutes if you've been following someone with one for any distance.  They're visible for miles in daylight on a straight road, but you ain't going to see them round a corner or through a hedge. 

I use a flashing rear light in low light or at night, with a steady light as well. Not sure of the evidence,  but flashing lights seem to create movement that the eye picks up better, steady lights allow better distance judgement. I use a flashing front light where there are streetlights, but a steady light where there aren't - it's good to be able to see what's on the road...

And yes, I am unaware of the Exposure back story.

Avatar
dottigirl replied to Roadie_john | 6 years ago
2 likes

Roadie_john wrote:

I use a flashing rear light in low light or at night, with a steady light as well. Not sure of the evidence,  but flashing lights seem to create movement that the eye picks up better, steady lights allow better distance judgement.

Yeah - this is what I recommend to newbies: flashing to be seen, steady for them to judge how far away you are.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
0 likes

Flashing lights during the day, what a load of old balls, more pointless nonsense. It won't stop those that aren't looking from crashing into you, it's those that you need to worry about and lights, hi-vis, sunflares aren't going to protect you.

And as with certain police reports, all it does it then put the blame onto those that are riding with legal lights, "lights were not very bright", lights were 'dim', yet still were legal. Upping the ante on lights only has a negative outcome, flashing lights during the day gets right up my nose and overtly bright flashing lights on urban roads is simply a hazard/thoughtlessness at best.

but if you've some hard evidence it will protect you/prevent incident link us to it so we can understand the thinking/facts.

Avatar
BarryBianchi replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
0 likes

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Flashing lights during the day, what a load of old balls, more pointless nonsense.

  You obviously don't know the tragic story behind Exposure/USE.

Avatar
madcarew replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
3 likes

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Flashing lights during the day, what a load of old balls, more pointless nonsense. It won't stop those that aren't looking from crashing into you, it's those that you need to worry about and lights, hi-vis, sunflares aren't going to protect you.

And as with certain police reports, all it does it then put the blame onto those that are riding with legal lights, "lights were not very bright", lights were 'dim', yet still were legal. Upping the ante on lights only has a negative outcome, flashing lights during the day gets right up my nose and overtly bright flashing lights on urban roads is simply a hazard/thoughtlessness at best.

but if you've some hard evidence it will protect you/prevent incident link us to it so we can understand the thinking/facts.

Definitely obtuse

"but if you've some hard evidence it will protect you/prevent incident link us to it so we can understand the thinking/facts." I have to assume by hard evidence you mean studies, and practical application of research:

LMGTFY

Not easy to find but...

https://colorusage.arc.nasa.gov/flashing_2.php

Blomberg 1986: A flashing light held by a pedestrian yielded a greater detecti on and recognition distance when compared with reflectorised accessories (420m versus 207m and 96m versus 92m respectively).
Watts 1984b: A rear bicycle lamp yielded a greater detection distance when compared with reflectors (306m versus 184m).
Watts 1984c: A flashing beacon on a bicycle yielded a greater detection but not recognition distance when compared with reflectors (588m versus 444m and 59m versus 71m respectively)

So, none of them show that it will prevent harm, but all demonstrate that a flashing light more readily gains attention than a steady light, or no light at all. 

Now that's been done for you, how about you prove th null hypothesis, that flashing lights don't provide protection, or aren't more visible.

 

 

Avatar
Ush replied to madcarew | 6 years ago
0 likes
madcarew wrote:

Now that's been done for you, how about you prove th null hypothesis, that flashing lights don't provide protection, or aren't more visible.

You did read what you pasted there didn't you? They're comparisons of reflectors to three other visual aids: steady light(pedestrian); steady light(bicycle) and flashing light(bicycle). Nowhere in there is there a comparison between steady lights and flashing lights. The only one of those which I have been able to find is one performed on snowploughs in North America[1] and its conclusion was that steady lights enabled drivers to more correctly judge the distance to the snowplough. (There must be others but I cannot find them. I assume that there is psychology/perceptual vision research which demonstrates that blinking lights attract the attention more in _certain conditions_, but they are not easy to find).

Two points jump out from this:

1) People's confidence that they "know" some "common sense" is strongest when they are low in information and they will be ruder and more vehement in their assertion of the truth of that weak position.

2) Car drivers are so used to ignoring safe driving practices that they will even smash into the back of something as huge as a snow plough (admittedly in low visibility conditions). The emphasis on doing the little we can to make ourselves more visible is misplaced. By all means do so, but the only meaningful, significant improvements can some from the regulation and control of the origin of the problem: the dangerous vehicles.

1. Bullough, J.D. et al "PAPER #14: REAR LIGHTING CONFIGURATIONS FOR WINTER MAINTENANCE VEHICLES" IESNA Annual Conference: Ottawa, ON, Canada; August 5-8, 2001 http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/resources/pdf/iesna01a.pdf

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to madcarew | 6 years ago
0 likes

madcarew wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Flashing lights during the day, what a load of old balls, more pointless nonsense. It won't stop those that aren't looking from crashing into you, it's those that you need to worry about and lights, hi-vis, sunflares aren't going to protect you.

And as with certain police reports, all it does it then put the blame onto those that are riding with legal lights, "lights were not very bright", lights were 'dim', yet still were legal. Upping the ante on lights only has a negative outcome, flashing lights during the day gets right up my nose and overtly bright flashing lights on urban roads is simply a hazard/thoughtlessness at best.

but if you've some hard evidence it will protect you/prevent incident link us to it so we can understand the thinking/facts.

Definitely obtuse

"but if you've some hard evidence it will protect you/prevent incident link us to it so we can understand the thinking/facts." I have to assume by hard evidence you mean studies, and practical application of research:

LMGTFY

Not easy to find but...

https://colorusage.arc.nasa.gov/flashing_2.php

Blomberg 1986: A flashing light held by a pedestrian yielded a greater detecti on and recognition distance when compared with reflectorised accessories (420m versus 207m and 96m versus 92m respectively).
Watts 1984b: A rear bicycle lamp yielded a greater detection distance when compared with reflectors (306m versus 184m).
Watts 1984c: A flashing beacon on a bicycle yielded a greater detection but not recognition distance when compared with reflectors (588m versus 444m and 59m versus 71m respectively)

So, none of them show that it will prevent harm, but all demonstrate that a flashing light more readily gains attention than a steady light, or no light at all. 

Now that's been done for you, how about you prove th null hypothesis, that flashing lights don't provide protection, or aren't more visible.

So no evidence then! These are people LOOKING, these are NOT the people who do not see steady lights. Try again.

it's not obtuse to question 'common sense' or other little fallacy nuggets.

Avatar
Mungecrundle replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
1 like
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

madcarew wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Flashing lights during the day, what a load of old balls, more pointless nonsense. It won't stop those that aren't looking from crashing into you, it's those that you need to worry about and lights, hi-vis, sunflares aren't going to protect you.

And as with certain police reports, all it does it then put the blame onto those that are riding with legal lights, "lights were not very bright", lights were 'dim', yet still were legal. Upping the ante on lights only has a negative outcome, flashing lights during the day gets right up my nose and overtly bright flashing lights on urban roads is simply a hazard/thoughtlessness at best.

but if you've some hard evidence it will protect you/prevent incident link us to it so we can understand the thinking/facts.

Definitely obtuse

"but if you've some hard evidence it will protect you/prevent incident link us to it so we can understand the thinking/facts." I have to assume by hard evidence you mean studies, and practical application of research:

LMGTFY

Not easy to find but...

https://colorusage.arc.nasa.gov/flashing_2.php

Blomberg 1986: A flashing light held by a pedestrian yielded a greater detecti on and recognition distance when compared with reflectorised accessories (420m versus 207m and 96m versus 92m respectively).
Watts 1984b: A rear bicycle lamp yielded a greater detection distance when compared with reflectors (306m versus 184m).
Watts 1984c: A flashing beacon on a bicycle yielded a greater detection but not recognition distance when compared with reflectors (588m versus 444m and 59m versus 71m respectively)

So, none of them show that it will prevent harm, but all demonstrate that a flashing light more readily gains attention than a steady light, or no light at all. 

Now that's been done for you, how about you prove th null hypothesis, that flashing lights don't provide protection, or aren't more visible.

So no evidence then! These are people LOOKING, these are NOT the people who do not see steady lights. Try again.

it's not obtuse to question 'common sense' or other little fallacy nuggets.

I think that you may have to just accept that there is no evidence, study results or anecdotal real world experience of other people that can challenge your rather strange and counter intuitive belief system.

Avatar
BarryBianchi replied to Mungecrundle | 6 years ago
1 like

Mungecrundle wrote:

I think that you may have to just accept that there is no evidence, study results or anecdotal real world experience of other people that can challenge your rather strange and counter intuitive belief system.[/quote]

 

Correct. There are just some people on here who are destined to keep making the same f-ups over and over again on the basis that they won't listen to anyone, and can't tell the difference between Googling to find what you want to find, and actual evidence.  This is the general area where the NHS interrups Darwinism.  Take a view...

Avatar
davel replied to BarryBianchi | 6 years ago
1 like
BarryBianchi wrote:

Correct. There are just some people on here who are destined to keep making the same f-ups over and over again on the basis that they won't listen to anyone, and can't tell the difference between Googling to find what you want to find, and actual evidence.  This is the general area where the NHS interrups Darwinism.  Take a view...

This from someone who doesn't know what a dual carriageway is, and can't figure out quote tags.

My view is you're full of shit.

Avatar
BarryBianchi replied to davel | 6 years ago
0 likes

This from someone who doesn't know what a dual carriageway is, and can't figure out quote tags. My view is you're full of shit.

 

I just wish I could find the words to tell you exaclty how valuable your "view" is.

Avatar
davel replied to BarryBianchi | 6 years ago
0 likes
BarryBianchi wrote:

This from someone who doesn't know what a dual carriageway is, and can't figure out quote tags. My view is you're full of shit.

 

I just wish I could find the words to tell you exaclty how valuable your "view" is.

Echo, echo...

Who are you talking to, you dribbling mess?

Get your grandma to give you some HTML tips when you've put down your Biggles comic.

Avatar
OR_biker replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
2 likes

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

So no evidence then! These are people LOOKING, these are NOT the people who do not see steady lights. Try again.

it's not obtuse to question 'common sense' or other little fallacy nuggets.

 

When I was taking flight lessons, I remember learning that movement is detected better by your peripheral vision.  So flashing lights could could create a movement-like effect that would then be more noticeable to those people not looking directly where a cyclist could be.  Not saying I know this to be the case, but just throwing it out there as a possible reason flashing lights could be more effective in certain situations.

Anecdotally (useless overall, I know) it seems that I do get less people pulling out in front of me from side roads when I have my front light flashing.  I only set it this way at certain times, usually dawn or dusk, when it's not dark enough for the flashing to distract but not bright enough to feel like no light is needed, and also bright enough that a steady light may not be noticed as well.  Mainly used on my way to work when the sun is at my back; most people looking at me from the front get blinded by the sun so I need something to stick out more.  I also point the light further downwards when I have it flashing, to try not to piss off anyone  1

Avatar
madcarew replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
0 likes

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

madcarew wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Flashing lights during the day, what a load of old balls, more pointless nonsense. It won't stop those that aren't looking from crashing into you, it's those that you need to worry about and lights, hi-vis, sunflares aren't going to protect you.

And as with certain police reports, all it does it then put the blame onto those that are riding with legal lights, "lights were not very bright", lights were 'dim', yet still were legal. Upping the ante on lights only has a negative outcome, flashing lights during the day gets right up my nose and overtly bright flashing lights on urban roads is simply a hazard/thoughtlessness at best.

but if you've some hard evidence it will protect you/prevent incident link us to it so we can understand the thinking/facts.

Definitely obtuse

"but if you've some hard evidence it will protect you/prevent incident link us to it so we can understand the thinking/facts." I have to assume by hard evidence you mean studies, and practical application of research:

LMGTFY

Not easy to find but...

https://colorusage.arc.nasa.gov/flashing_2.php

Blomberg 1986: A flashing light held by a pedestrian yielded a greater detecti on and recognition distance when compared with reflectorised accessories (420m versus 207m and 96m versus 92m respectively).
Watts 1984b: A rear bicycle lamp yielded a greater detection distance when compared with reflectors (306m versus 184m).
Watts 1984c: A flashing beacon on a bicycle yielded a greater detection but not recognition distance when compared with reflectors (588m versus 444m and 59m versus 71m respectively)

So, none of them show that it will prevent harm, but all demonstrate that a flashing light more readily gains attention than a steady light, or no light at all. 

Now that's been done for you, how about you prove th null hypothesis, that flashing lights don't provide protection, or aren't more visible.

So no evidence then! These are people LOOKING, these are NOT the people who do not see steady lights. Try again.

it's not obtuse to question 'common sense' or other little fallacy nuggets.

"how about you prove (your) hypothesis, that flashing lights don't provide protection, or aren't more visible."

You are making some strong claims 

"Flashing lights during the day, what a load of old balls, more pointless nonsense. "

"hi-vis, sunflares aren't going to protect you." 

It's up to you now to provide evidence to support your claims.

Actually one of these studies shows that hi vis does raise your conspicuity to motorists. As to your point about this being people who are "looking ". There is evidence to show that people who are "looking" will just as readily miss the obvious as those who aren't looking. 

Over to you, provide some evidence of your claims, or accept that you are talking exactly the same "balls" and poppycock that you are saying (most of) the rest of the world is saying.

I saw the snowplough report as well, and it provides interesting reading, but sbow plougsh, by nature (if you've ever followed one in action) are surrounded by a cloud of snow which as the study shows is a serious obfuscating factor. It did interestingly show that steady lights were more visible in that circumstance than flashing. 

I am very happy for the accepted wisdomto be challenged and that that flashing lights are no more visible, or no more likely to enhance your visibility than a steady light, or no light in the day time . But that is going to require some rigorous proof.  Clearly, no kind of light is not going to protect you from a driver who is looking at their phone or combing their beard in the mirror, but most accidents aren't a result of this. Common sense (!) says that raising your visibility is going to enhance your chances of not being run over by most motorists

 

Avatar
BarryBianchi replied to madcarew | 6 years ago
2 likes

madcarew wrote:

"how about you prove (your) hypothesis, that flashing lights don't provide protection, or aren't more visible."

You're trying to train one of the stand-out packs of mince on this site to do back-flips.  It's like intellectual altitude training; long, aching process that's only rewarding if you have a definite use for it.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to madcarew | 6 years ago
0 likes

madcarew wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

madcarew wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Flashing lights during the day, what a load of old balls, more pointless nonsense. It won't stop those that aren't looking from crashing into you, it's those that you need to worry about and lights, hi-vis, sunflares aren't going to protect you.

And as with certain police reports, all it does it then put the blame onto those that are riding with legal lights, "lights were not very bright", lights were 'dim', yet still were legal. Upping the ante on lights only has a negative outcome, flashing lights during the day gets right up my nose and overtly bright flashing lights on urban roads is simply a hazard/thoughtlessness at best.

but if you've some hard evidence it will protect you/prevent incident link us to it so we can understand the thinking/facts.

Definitely obtuse

"but if you've some hard evidence it will protect you/prevent incident link us to it so we can understand the thinking/facts." I have to assume by hard evidence you mean studies, and practical application of research:

LMGTFY

Not easy to find but...

https://colorusage.arc.nasa.gov/flashing_2.php

Blomberg 1986: A flashing light held by a pedestrian yielded a greater detecti on and recognition distance when compared with reflectorised accessories (420m versus 207m and 96m versus 92m respectively).
Watts 1984b: A rear bicycle lamp yielded a greater detection distance when compared with reflectors (306m versus 184m).
Watts 1984c: A flashing beacon on a bicycle yielded a greater detection but not recognition distance when compared with reflectors (588m versus 444m and 59m versus 71m respectively)

So, none of them show that it will prevent harm, but all demonstrate that a flashing light more readily gains attention than a steady light, or no light at all. 

Now that's been done for you, how about you prove th null hypothesis, that flashing lights don't provide protection, or aren't more visible.

So no evidence then! These are people LOOKING, these are NOT the people who do not see steady lights. Try again.

it's not obtuse to question 'common sense' or other little fallacy nuggets.

"how about you prove (your) hypothesis, that flashing lights don't provide protection, or aren't more visible."

You are making some strong claims 

"Flashing lights during the day, what a load of old balls, more pointless nonsense. "

"hi-vis, sunflares aren't going to protect you." 

It's up to you now to provide evidence to support your claims.

Actually one of these studies shows that hi vis does raise your conspicuity to motorists. As to your point about this being people who are "looking ". There is evidence to show that people who are "looking" will just as readily miss the obvious as those who aren't looking. 

Over to you, provide some evidence of your claims, or accept that you are talking exactly the same "balls" and poppycock that you are saying (most of) the rest of the world is saying.

I saw the snowplough report as well, and it provides interesting reading, but sbow plougsh, by nature (if you've ever followed one in action) are surrounded by a cloud of snow which as the study shows is a serious obfuscating factor. It did interestingly show that steady lights were more visible in that circumstance than flashing. 

I am very happy for the accepted wisdomto be challenged and that that flashing lights are no more visible, or no more likely to enhance your visibility than a steady light, or no light in the day time . But that is going to require some rigorous proof.  Clearly, no kind of light is not going to protect you from a driver who is looking at their phone or combing their beard in the mirror, but most accidents aren't a result of this. Common sense (!) says that raising your visibility is going to enhance your chances of not being run over by most motorists

 

the initial claim was that flashing front lights ARE better/make you more visible, I said they're not, thus the onus of proof goes with those stating that flashing lights are better/more visible. Maybe you need to figure out how things work with regard to onus of evidence as what you linked to proves diddly squat.

"one study", yeah, there's always that 'one' study that might loosely prove your point. Plenty more that say that hi-vis doesn't work, and if it was so effective why aren't the government demanding hi-vis colours for those vehicles that crash into each other all the time???

And as i've said it before, going down the route of hi-vis, helmets, brighter lights puts more and more onus on the vulnerable to protect themselves and absolve responsibility from those that present the harm

As for dual carriageways and snow ploughs, what the fuck are you jabbering on about!

You're the one who is obtuse!

Avatar
BarryBianchi replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
0 likes

Behind wrote:

You're the one who is obtuse!

 

No. You have just confused your "onus" of proof with your "anus".

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to BarryBianchi | 6 years ago
0 likes

BarryBianchi wrote:

Behind wrote:

You're the one who is obtuse!

 

No. You have just confused your "onus" of proof with your "anus".

Ah so, having l;ost the argument you resort to personal insults, congrats on your loss!

Avatar
KINGHORN | 6 years ago
1 like

Flashing front lights are for city riding only, out in the sticks with no street lights it should be constant beam only. Most annoying when someone in the pitch black comes towards flashing like a blinking disco!

Avatar
Yorkshie Whippet | 6 years ago
1 like

Makes me chuckle that certain car makers have fitted that bright DRL that they are now switched off so indicators can be seen.

Oooo look our lights are now too bright let's them off........

Oh sorry were you blinded?

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
2 likes

it's a light war, EU regs have allowed brighter and brighter motorvehicle lights so that they can go faster in the dark, people on bikes put brighter lights on to counteract that.

Urban driving should only ever have sidelights, absolutely no need for headlights to be on when the streets are lit and certainly not those shitty DRLs which are an absolute nightmare/worse than usueless. I've been pulled over by plod for leaving my front fogs on in the past (it was barely a few minutes after coming off a foggy country lane) but nowadays the DRLs are ridiculous as is the intensity of modern car/van lights and no-one does anything despite them being obviously too bright/blinding.

Avatar
BarryBianchi | 6 years ago
0 likes

FFS.  Flashing helmets are scientifically proven to be 106% more stifferer in crashes than Campag, and anyone that now says otherwise was killed by an Audi in a close pass.

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to BarryBianchi | 6 years ago
6 likes
BarryBianchi wrote:

FFS.  Flashing helmets are scientifically proven to be 106% more stifferer in crashes than Campag, and anyone that now says otherwise was killed by an Audi in a close pass.

I'm not falling for that one. You can get on a list if you flash your helmet. Stiff or otherwise.

Avatar
Jackson | 6 years ago
0 likes

I don't see any problem with rear flashing lights and I was in groups with a mix of flashing/non-flashing lights pretty much the whole way. Either they were all considerate enough to be on dim settings or as I suspect group riding skills play a part: it's a bad habit to be looking down at where most people put their lights so if you're in that habit your eyes will take a beating. You should be looking at the person in front of you. 

It was my first DD and I thought it was great, though it looks like complaining about it on the internet is almost as big as the ride itself. Other than a few knobs inflicting their horrendous taste in music on everyone I couldn't see anything to complain about. 

Avatar
Innerlube | 6 years ago
2 likes

Well I spent a fair part of the night being passed by people so had plenty of opportunity to consider rear lighting!

Tbh, didn't have any problems with flashing rear lights, though there was the odd non flasher which was too bright and/or just angled straight at my eyeline.

Did notice that very few people use any sort of reflective hi-viz stuff. The odd rider who did have some sort of reflector really stood out. My conclusion was that lights have just continued to get better and better, and consequently we are all less bothered by hi- viz. 

Agree with the obvious points above - flashing lights last longer, they also arguably more noticeable to drivers.

Thanks to everyone who shared the road with us, and the sea too. See you again next year!

Avatar
crazy-legs | 6 years ago
4 likes

I've done DD about 15 times, right back from the early 90's when it was a semi-organised audax style event run by Mosquito Bikes and there were only about 200 people at most and lighting technology was nowhere near what it is now.

The points about lights are well made; having insanely bright flashing lights are fine in town for commuting but once on dark country lanes in a group ride through the night when traffic is minimal you want the opposite - a small steady rear light on its dimmest setting and a nice bright front on constant.

It got frustrating last year asking people to turn their rear lights off or down, there were plenty of people it was impossible to ride behind and it's really dangerous in a group.

Nice drone video though!

Pages

Latest Comments